Third of US drivers may have subconscious death wish, text while driving

CDC survey finds 31 percent admit to driving while texting within last month.

Nearly a third of American drivers apparently have a death wish, based on data released this week by the Centers for Disease Control. The CDC's study is based on data collected in the US during October 2011, and the organization found that approximately one in three American drivers send or read text messages on their cell phones while driving.

This data, published in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report this week, showed more than half of two demographic groups—women from 18 to 24, and men from 25 to 34 years of age—admitted to texting while driving within the 30 days prior to taking the survey.

Percentage of men and women who admit to making cell calls and to texting while driving, by age group.

Centers for Disease Control

The study also included a similar survey of European drivers conducted in June of 2011. By comparison, drivers in most of the countries covered by the study were much less likely to text (or at least, less likely to admit to texting) while driving. Only Portugal matched the US in texting-while-driving behavior.

A nation-by-nation breakdown of how drivers responded when asked if they text and drive.

Centers for Disease Control

It's important to remember this data came from surveys performed in the US and Europe in 2011, so they may not reflect the impact of recent anti-texting laws or other efforts in the US to curb the practice. (At the same time, it also didn't include responses from the countless people who couldn't respond due to tragic death or injury from accidents experienced while texting.)

155 Reader Comments

I would not defend texting while driving. It's a bad thing. That said, I've always found it interesting that there are other activities, like eating, that are about as dangerous to do while driving, but that we don't talk about as much.

I only ever send text while driving through voice dictation. And my phone can read received texts out to me. As a pedestrian, I've nearly been hit too many times by fucktards texting and blowing through stop signs to participate in the same actions.

There are different types of texting and driving. Texting *while* driving at 30 or more MPH is a terrible idea. Texting while stuck at a red light is not, since you cannot cause a crash at that point. I wish a lot more people would understand that there is a difference, and not everyone behind a wheel causes concerns for other drivers.

The title of your article is not born out by the facts. While texting is on the rise, driving deaths are on the decline. There are no statistics that show a correlation between texting and traffic fatalities.

There are different types of texting and driving. Texting *while* driving at 30 or more MPH is a terrible idea. Texting while stuck at a red light is not, since you cannot cause a crash at that point. I wish a lot more people would understand that there is a difference, and not everyone behind a wheel causes concerns for other drivers.

I would not defend texting while driving. It's a bad thing. That said, I've always found it interesting that there are other activities, like eating, that are about as dangerous to do while driving, but that we don't talk about as much.

Eating seems much less common than texting or talking, at least so far as I've noticed. That's probably why it's less of a point, as well as being an older behavior.

The problem is that people tend to invest any left-over alertness when driving into other things, phone or not. And they only seem to think that they need to invest just enough alertness into driving to keep on the street. That's the same reason people drive faster in the dark: They don't see much more than the part of the street and surroundings their lights show them, so there's less they have to care for.

I have a friend who not only talks a lot but also has a habit of turning her head and looking and gesturing straight at you when she talks to you and she does this even when she's driving. She's often not looking at the street at all for 10 seconds or more at a time then. I have no idea if she's texting when she's driving alone but if she does I hardly think it can be more dangerous than that.

In other words: I think very much texting while driving is dangerous, but people who do that would do other dangerous things while driving if they couldn't text. Or just drive in day-dream mode, basically on autopilot.

The title of your article is not born out by the facts. While texting is on the rise, driving deaths are on the decline. There are no statistics that show a correlation between texting and traffic fatalities.

Don't lump together trend in all traffic fatalities vs trend in phone use related traffic fatalities. General traffic fatalities may drop independently to phone use related traffic fatalities.

The title of your article is not born out by the facts. While texting is on the rise, driving deaths are on the decline. There are no statistics that show a correlation between texting and traffic fatalities.

Well, it's becoming harder and harder to get killed at all in modern cars since a long time now.

Sometimes I think the best street safety device would be a long, straight steel spike on the wheel pointing right at your breastbone and outlawing seatbelts ;-)

I would not defend texting while driving. It's a bad thing. That said, I've always found it interesting that there are other activities, like eating, that are about as dangerous to do while driving, but that we don't talk about as much.

Is this actually true? Do you have a cite? I ask because I don't know. I don't think that either is a good idea, and I don't know whether this is actually true or not either but... it seems to me that texting (or talking on the phone) is more problematic because it takes the texter or talker out of the context of the vehicle and into the mental space of the conversation (and this is different from conversing with someone actually in the vehicle with you). I.e. it isn't just the physical distraction of operating the phone but the mental distraction of having your head in a different place than your body... as it were.

Why is the CDC performing this study and not the NTSB or something.Is texting while driving a mental disorder?From the drivers I see driving poorly... and of those I see using a mobile... I have to think that yes... mental disorders.

I would not defend texting while driving. It's a bad thing. That said, I've always found it interesting that there are other activities, like eating, that are about as dangerous to do while driving, but that we don't talk about as much.

Is this actually true? Do you have a cite? I ask because I don't know. I don't think that either is a good idea, and I don't know whether this is actually true or not either but... it seems to me that texting (or talking on the phone) is more problematic because it takes the texter or talker out of the context of the vehicle and into the mental space of the conversation (and this is different from conversing with someone actually in the vehicle with you). I.e. it isn't just the physical distraction of operating the phone but the mental distraction of having your head in a different place than your body... as it were.

Single study and the article is far from clear on what is meant (text messages seems an odd one, I'm guessing it's for a person who doesn't have to physically look at their phone to send a text and their reaction time while sending a text but looking at a road).

Reaction time while reading a text message I imagine is completely shot to hell.

There are different types of texting and driving. Texting *while* driving at 30 or more MPH is a terrible idea. Texting while stuck at a red light is not, since you cannot cause a crash at that point. I wish a lot more people would understand that there is a difference, and not everyone behind a wheel causes concerns for other drivers.

Your foot can't slip off the brake, causing you to move forward and possibly rear-end the car in front of you or even move into traffic?

Is that really a "crash?" No, but it's still caused by some form of inattention.

If nothing else, you may be "that guy" who isn't paying attention when the light changes, and the cars behind you start honking because you're impeding the traffic flow.

The title of your article is not born out by the facts. While texting is on the rise, driving deaths are on the decline. There are no statistics that show a correlation between texting and traffic fatalities.

Not sure how you can state this. There are definitely studies that support texting as more likely to cause accidents, more likely to cause sever accidents, and more likely to cause fatalities. I would classify this information as "no duh."

Text messaging creates a crash risk 23 times worse than driving while not distracted

Don't lump together trend in all traffic fatalities vs trend in phone use related traffic fatalities. General traffic fatalities may drop independently to phone use related traffic fatalities.

So? You still have zero empirical evidence showing that texting is dangerous. Seriously, what's the problem with Ars Technica that they don't understand the basic scientific method.

I merely pointed out not to lump together data in data collection. You are claiming actual trend in data. Way I see it, YOU need to provide evidence tha tthere are no correlation to rate of traffic accident in relation to texting.

Also, before you blame Ars about "basic scientific methods", you might do some basic research on how to do proper data gathering and analysis.

I would not defend texting while driving. It's a bad thing. That said, I've always found it interesting that there are other activities, like eating, that are about as dangerous to do while driving, but that we don't talk about as much.

I don't know about you, but I can keep stuffing food into my mouth without ever taking my eyes off the road. It's a bit more difficult texting on a phone without actually looking at it at the same time.

As someone mentioned above, when comparing the rather low probability of a crash and painful death to the relatively high probability of the girlfriend getting mad at you and eventually breaking up, it actually might be logical to just text away.

I merely pointed out not to lump together data in data collection. You are claiming actual trend in data. Way I see it, YOU need to provide evidence tha tthere are no correlation to rate of traffic accident in relation to texting.

Also, before you blame Ars about "basic scientific methods", you might do some basic research on how to do proper data gathering and analysis.

Dude, you really need to go back and re-read your high school science textbook. It's like you are asking me to prove God doesn't exist just because I question your evidence that he does.

I'm not claiming texting is safe. I'm claiming you have no good evidence that it's unsafe.

We have good evidence that texting is a distraction, and distractions cause accidents. So it's a reasonable hypothesis that texting leads to greater traffic accidents. On the other hand, there has been a step function increase in the amount of texting-while-driving. We'd therefore expect to see a step function increase in traffic accidents. But we don't -- we see the steady gradual decrease in accidents. Therefore, a reasonable hypothesis that drivers compensate for the distraction of texting, such as driving slower or only texting during safe periods, like at a traffic light.

The point is that there is zero scientific basis for the claim made in the title.

Really, I think I have a science textbook for third graders I can send you.

I didn't claim that texting while driving is safe or unsafe. As I said before, I pointed out not to lump together data that can and does have known different precedents.

Your original post noted "While texting is on the rise, driving deaths are on the decline." "Driving death" may have more precedents than "Death while texting". Your argument in this post applies if you equate all of "Driving death" as occuring from "Death while texting" while ignoring other factors such as improved vehicles, roading laws, roading conditions, better survey methods etc.

And also, don't send me third grader science textbook. This is about data filtering and data analysis; something you don't get into until you either do statistics or high grade science/engineering.

Dude, you really need to go back and re-read your high school science textbook. It's like you are asking me to prove God doesn't exist just because I question your evidence that he does.

I'm not claiming texting is safe. I'm claiming you have no good evidence that it's unsafe.

We have good evidence that texting is a distraction, and distractions cause accidents. So it's a reasonable hypothesis that texting leads to greater traffic accidents. On the other hand, there has been a step function increase in the amount of texting-while-driving. We'd therefore expect to see a step function increase in traffic accidents. But we don't -- we see the steady gradual decrease in accidents. Therefore, a reasonable hypothesis that drivers compensate for the distraction of texting, such as driving slower or only texting during safe periods, like at a traffic light.

The point is that there is zero scientific basis for the claim made in the title.

Really, I think I have a science textbook for third graders I can send you.

This is well known research. Texting while driving is as dangerous as driving drunk.

I wish these studies were more specific with their questions and answers. First of all you should be able to fill in whether you whether you read a text, wrote one, dictated one, etc. I also think the length of the text matters, as sending or especially reading a one word text like "coming" can be less distracting than calling, or even changing a song.

I am by no means defending the practice, but I have texted while at a long stop light, while driving down country roads when there were no cars in sight. Since my phone is my music player, I have also read one line texts before dismissing them so that I can change the song. Etc.

I wonder how many people are like me. While it is certainly not safe to text at times like that, it is a heck of a lot more safe than typing a text on a bustling roadway. I think that relativeness is very important to determine in studies like this. As it stands, even people who read a one word text while at a stop sign will be included in this 33% figure

As someone mentioned above, when comparing the rather low probability of a crash and painful death to the relatively high probability of the girlfriend getting mad at you and eventually breaking up, it actually might be logical to just text away.

I merely pointed out not to lump together data in data collection. You are claiming actual trend in data. Way I see it, YOU need to provide evidence tha tthere are no correlation to rate of traffic accident in relation to texting.

Also, before you blame Ars about "basic scientific methods", you might do some basic research on how to do proper data gathering and analysis.

Dude, you really need to go back and re-read your high school science textbook. It's like you are asking me to prove God doesn't exist just because I question your evidence that he does.

I'm not claiming texting is safe. I'm claiming you have no good evidence that it's unsafe.

We have good evidence that texting is a distraction, and distractions cause accidents. So it's a reasonable hypothesis that texting leads to greater traffic accidents. On the other hand, there has been a step function increase in the amount of texting-while-driving. We'd therefore expect to see a step function increase in traffic accidents. But we don't -- we see the steady gradual decrease in accidents. Therefore, a reasonable hypothesis that drivers compensate for the distraction of texting, such as driving slower or only texting during safe periods, like at a traffic light.

The point is that there is zero scientific basis for the claim made in the title.

Really, I think I have a science textbook for third graders I can send you.

This is pretty easy to prove, wouldn't one single accident while texting that could have otherwise been avoided prove that it leads to greater traffic accidents? If so, Google can find about a bajillion.

edit: To explain a little further, the point where you're off is "We'd therefore expect to see a step function increase in traffic accidents". We wouldn't as there are a huge amount of variables there, what we'd expect to see a step function increase in traffic accidents while texting.

As someone mentioned above, when comparing the rather low probability of a crash and painful death to the relatively high probability of the girlfriend getting mad at you and eventually breaking up, it actually might be logical to just text away.

Depends on how much you value the relationship, though :-)

Or just get a cheap hands-free kit.

One of those Fleshlight thingies? I'm not sure the GF would want to operate it though.

"We have good evidence that texting is a distraction, and distractions cause accidents."When speaking about safety laws where there is a risk of injury or death, not only to the idiot texting but any innocent third party then this is reason enough to ban it.

Many safety regulations aren't necessarily based on proven, documented harm. A high potential for this harm to occur is sufficient. Otherwise we're back to building dangerous things and allowing dangerous actions and only retrospectively banning them after they caused harm. Personally I'd hope we're more intelligent than that.

That's not what the study shows. You could just as easily interpret the results "people text while distracted".

If, as the study says, texting leads to 23 times more accidents, and 30% of drivers text, why isn't there a 10x increase in traffic accidents? Instead, why have traffic accident statistics been steady over the long term (except for the long term decline in traffic fatalities)?

That's not what the study shows. You could just as easily interpret the results "people text while distracted".

If, as the study says, texting leads to 23 times more accidents, and 30% of drivers text, why isn't there a 10x increase in traffic accidents? Instead, why have traffic accident statistics been steady over the long term (except for the long term decline in traffic fatalities)?

Sean Gallagher / Sean is Ars Technica's IT Editor. A former Navy officer, systems administrator, and network systems integrator with 20 years of IT journalism experience, he lives and works in Baltimore, Maryland.